[Ed Hurst]

Like Mike, I find the 35A and 120A lenses to be very good, especially the latter. The former is eclipsed by the 28-45 and 35DFA, but is still very good, even on the Z. YMMV.

Point taken about 'bite' in the contrast, but that's certainly a processing choice as long as the lens captures detail and tones (which these two do).

On the other hand, I agree that the 45-85, 45, 150 and 200s are not quite up to the job (though 45-85 is OK up to about 65 and the 150 is alright if you like portrait-y softness)...

[mikeSF]

Mike in my opinion where the current 645 lenses lack is in the "bite" and contrast that the best current Zeiss lenses have for example.

Although I like the 28-45, it is definitely a flat lens, lacking the lovely crispness and bite of other lenses.

However in saying that I have taken some lovely shots with it and you can add bite in PP.

I prefer zooms for landscape because of flexibility, and I have an 80-160 FA and it does render an "older" flatter image than the DFA 90. So an updated zoom would be a real treat.

Good point 2351HD. I could certainly welcome some Leica or Zeiss high end lens options, but those would likely be in the $3-8K range and not constitute a full rig, more a coveted specialty lens.

[gavincato]

My 150 is pretty good sharpness wise at f/11, but my fave long landscape long focal length lens is the blad 110/2 - I doubt they designed it with that in mind but at f/11 has startling levels of sharpness and beautiful inky contrast.

[The Madshutter]

Actually, I get the feeling they have been re-vitalizing this platform and i'm quite pleased with the array of lens choices(old and new) presently available; i do not see lens selection as a limiting factor given the vast legacy options for 645 and 67 that can be used. Nor do i find lenses such as the A35 and A120 to "not be up to the task of the 645Z sensor"; I am curious what measurements you are taking because you sound very discriminating.
Slightly puzzled at your comments.

Like Mike, I find the 35A and 120A lenses to be very good, especially the latter. The former is eclipsed by the 28-45 and 35DFA, but is still very good, even on the Z. YMMV.

Point taken about 'bite' in the contrast, but that's certainly a processing choice as long as the lens captures detail and tones (which these two do).

On the other hand, I agree that the 45-85, 45, 150 and 200s are not quite up to the job (though 45-85 is OK up to about 65 and the 150 is alright if you like portrait-y softness)...

Mike,

Ed answered you - the 35A is good, but the 28-45 "eclipses it". The "the 45-85, 45, 150 and 200s are not quite up to the job". What I mean by "not up to the 645z's sensor" is, try a lens on the 645D and on the 645Z, taking the same shot with both cameras, and you will see which lens benefits from the 50 Mp and which, on the other hand, does not. Those who do not benefit from the increase in resolution, to me, are "not up to the sensor of the 645Z". This is my measurement. I didn't say that they are bad lenses, btw. They are good performers, or even very good performers, but some are up to the sensor, some are not and resolve much less.

As far as the system being "slowly living or slowly dying", I guess I am OK with either definition In either case, I think Pentax had a great setup, with lot of growth potential: APS-C for amateurs and advanced amateurs, and the best 645 camera out there by any measurement (quality alone, price alone, quality-price ratio, sensor, etc) for pro and more advanced amateurs. They should have pursued this further, and instead they choose to divert energy to FF, for which - again - they have almost no modern lenses. It's their choice, of course, but one that doesn't make much sense to me - I, for one, got out of the 645 system for lack of lenses, especially an ultra-wide angle, sold my companion K3 as well, and didn't look at Pentax to replace it with FF. After sticking to it for two years, I simply got tired of waiting. Result: they lost me as a customer, at least for the moment being. More, I know many photographers that, when I was using the 645 system, kept telling me "I'd switch instantly if Pentax had this or that lens", but never did switch - Pentax never did provide them the lens/lenses they needed.

Best,

Vieri

[mikeSF]

Mike,

Ed answered you - the 35A is good, but the 28-45 "eclipses it". The "the 45-85, 45, 150 and 200s are not quite up to the job". What I mean by "not up to the 645z's sensor" is, try a lens on the 645D and on the 645Z, taking the same shot with both cameras, and you will see which lens benefits from the 50 Mp and which, on the other hand, does not. Those who do not benefit from the increase in resolution, to me, are "not up to the sensor of the 645Z". This is my measurement. I didn't say that they are bad lenses, btw. They are good performers, or even very good performers, but some are up to the sensor, some are not and resolve much less.

As far as the system being "slowly living or slowly dying", I guess I am OK with either definition In either case, I think Pentax had a great setup, with lot of growth potential: APS-C for amateurs and advanced amateurs, and the best 645 camera out there by any measurement (quality alone, price alone, quality-price ratio, sensor, etc) for pro and more advanced amateurs. They should have pursued this further, and instead they choose to divert energy to FF, for which - again - they have almost no modern lenses. It's their choice, of course, but one that doesn't make much sense to me - I, for one, got out of the 645 system for lack of lenses, especially an ultra-wide angle, sold my companion K3 as well, and didn't look at Pentax to replace it with FF. After sticking to it for two years, I simply got tired of waiting. Result: they lost me as a customer, at least for the moment being. More, I know many photographers that, when I was using the 645 system, kept telling me "I'd switch instantly if Pentax had this or that lens", but never did switch - Pentax never did provide them the lens/lenses they needed.

Best,

Vieri

Thanks for explaining your statement. Just saying something is "not up to the job" does not constitute proof without the comparative images to back it up, so no disrespect, but I remain dubious of your assertion.
I've used the same bag of lenses with the D and the Z and do not find the glass to limit the performance of either sensor. Since you switched to something else, what is it that you finally found that is giving you the quality that the Pentax 645 system could not?

[2351HD]

Well I will probably be jumping if the new Hasselblad system due to be announced on the 22nd is any good. If it's the 645z 50mp sensor in a mirror less type body with EFC and EVF and reasonable price then my whole system will be on eBay, even if it only gets me the camera and one 28mm equivalent lens.

Hasselblad seem to have a complete set of lenses for their systems.

[The Madshutter]

Thanks for explaining your statement. Just saying something is "not up to the job" does not constitute proof without the comparative images to back it up, so no disrespect, but I remain dubious of your assertion.
I've used the same bag of lenses with the D and the Z and do not find the glass to limit the performance of either sensor. Since you switched to something else, what is it that you finally found that is giving you the quality that the Pentax 645 system could not?

Mike, the "not up to the job" were not my words, it was my quote of Ed's words. What I said, and I stand behind it, is that the lenses I tried and mentioned in my original post (45-85mm FA, 33-55mm, 35mm A and FA, 120 macro, 150 f/3.5 A, 150 f/2.8, 45mm f/2.8, 200mm A) are definitely outresolved by the 645z's sensor (with the 120 macro being the best of the bunch). I am sorry but since I sold the system I cannot provide you with comparative images.

My reason for switching is simple: lack of wide angle lenses. For my work, I found the 22mm FOV equivalent of the 28-45mm VERY limiting. I often shoot wider than that, and I had to get a K3 with a Sigma 10-20 to cover that, but the quality was obviously lacking (both in general, and especially so compared with the 645z's files).

Since I am also a long-time Leica M user, I got a Leica SL with the 24-90mm native lens (amazing performer, I'd say a perfect lens), and an M adapter with which I can use my 16-18-21mm Tri-Elmar and my Voigtlander 12mm: the former is an exceptional performer all around, the latter is the oldest version and is slightly softer on the extreme corners, but I am going to see what the newest version is like - but at least I have the options. More, I also have other M lenses I can use and that have no equal in the 645 lineup (such as the Noctilux).

The Leica SL's files are very good, but not as good as the Pentax 645z of course - having double the pixels makes a big difference. However, by switching I saved 4-5 kg in my camera bag (great thing when hiking many km to get to a location), and I gained a lot of wide-angle reach and lens flexibility using the superb Leica M glass, plus you can adapt Canon EOS lenses without any loss of function (the 17 T-S is looking very interesting!), etc. If you are interested in my thoughts on the SL (with a short comparison to the 645z as well), please check out my review:

https://vieribottazzini.com/2016/06/landscape-photographer-in-depth-leica-sl-review.html

As I said in my first reply, to me the 645z is the best hidden secret in the digital MF world, and I am very sad to see that Pentax is letting it slowly die (or slowly live, whichever you prefer); while it might make many photographers happy, for what I shoot the Pentax 645 system is lacking. Since is not a religion war, and since I am very much brand-agnostic (go where I think I'll find what I need) if and when Pentax will make the lenses I need, I'll gladly jump back in

Best,

Vieri

[KDINDC]

Mike, the "not up to the job" were not my words, it was my quote of Ed's words. What I said, and I stand behind it, is that the lenses I tried and mentioned in my original post (45-85mm FA, 33-55mm, 35mm A and FA, 120 macro, 150 f/3.5 A, 150 f/2.8, 45mm f/2.8, 200mm A) are definitely outresolved by the 645z's sensor (with the 120 macro being the best of the bunch). I am sorry but since I sold the system I cannot provide you with comparative images.

My reason for switching is simple: lack of wide angle lenses. For my work, I found the 22mm FOV equivalent of the 28-45mm VERY limiting. I often shoot wider than that, and I had to get a K3 with a Sigma 10-20 to cover that, but the quality was obviously lacking (both in general, and especially so compared with the 645z's files).

Since I am also a long-time Leica M user, I got a Leica SL with the 24-90mm native lens (amazing performer, I'd say a perfect lens), and an M adapter with which I can use my 16-18-21mm Tri-Elmar and my Voigtlander 12mm: the former is an exceptional performer all around, the latter is the oldest version and is slightly softer on the extreme corners, but I am going to see what the newest version is like - but at least I have the options. More, I also have other M lenses I can use and that have no equal in the 645 lineup (such as the Noctilux).

The Leica SL's files are very good, but not as good as the Pentax 645z of course - having double the pixels makes a big difference. However, by switching I saved 4-5 kg in my camera bag (great thing when hiking many km to get to a location), and I gained a lot of wide-angle reach and lens flexibility using the superb Leica M glass, plus you can adapt Canon EOS lenses without any loss of function (the 17 T-S is looking very interesting!), etc. If you are interested in my thoughts on the SL (with a short comparison to the 645z as well), please check out my review:

https://vieribottazzini.com/2016/06/landscape-photographer-in-depth-leica-sl-review.html

As I said in my first reply, to me the 645z is the best hidden secret in the digital MF world, and I am very sad to see that Pentax is letting it slowly die (or slowly live, whichever you prefer); while it might make many photographers happy, for what I shoot the Pentax 645 system is lacking. Since is not a religion war, and since I am very much brand-agnostic (go where I think I'll find what I need) if and when Pentax will make the lenses I need, I'll gladly jump back in

Best,

Vieri

Well said and explained. I have not seen the "better" results that can be had, I'm still ecstatic with the results that I get from the legacy lenses. My bank account doesn't want me to see them either :-)

[KDINDC]

Other than the 67's, what medium format lenses can be fitted to the Z via adapter?

[Bob L]

Other than the 67's, what medium format lenses can be fitted to the Z via adapter?

Anything with a Pentacon Six mount works well....assuming that the lens has sufficient quality.

Bob

[mattb123]

Other than the 67's, what medium format lenses can be fitted to the Z via adapter?

Hasselblad lenses can be adapted too, at least the older ones.

[Ed Hurst]

Hasselblad lenses can be adapted too, at least the older ones.

Yep. The V series ones can be used, which vary in quality and, at their best, are very good (though not superlative by modern digital standards - perhaps best used for their unique character). The H series lenses, with their electronic functioning, cannot be used unless someone develops an adaptor that takes care of the electronics (like the ones that allow compatibility between the Hasselblad and Leica S platforms).

For now, it's the V series Hasselblads only.

I have also seen people have the mounts changed on Mamiya 645 fit T/S Hartblei lenses, but that's more niche (and not something you can do with an adaptor due to flange distances).

[desertscape]

A good option for 45mm is the Pentax 67 with an adapter. Not so great on the 67 system,

Oh, I don't know; I 've had one since 1990 and had many shots published with it, so it suits my needs.

[Silent Street]

[...] A good option for 45mm is the Pentax 67 with an adapter. Not so great on the 67 system, performs very well on the 645z (using only the sweet spot of the lens)

Lack of lenses is the biggest problem for what would otherwise be a great system. Sad that Pentax is not developing it, because to me the 645z is the best hidden secret in the digital MF world, and Pentax is letting it slowly die.

Best,

Vieri

The 45mm is "not so great on the 67 system"??
What are you talking about? It's one of the best lenses available at the ultra-wide angle view. It's also prime #2 in my kit, next to the SMCP 67 752.8AL.

The 645Z is not a "best hidden secret in the digital MF world". That goes to the Phase 1 system with Hasselblad, for those who can justly affod it (or lease it, which is more sensible). The 645Z considered by a lot of dealers as being "a baggy suit in need of a tailor".